JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      The parties are up in arms over the question of pension.  It is always desirable that the pensioners should be treated with kid gloves but it is unfortunate that in our times, they are exasperated by senseless delay.  The Department is always interested in wasting more money and their time, than it is involved in such like frivolous litigations.

2.      The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, ONGC Ltd. and their Executive Officer and the Chief Manager(F& A) have called into question the orders rendered by the District Forum and Gujarat State Consumer

-9-

Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad.  Both the fora below have given the concurrent findings.

3.      All the revision petitions are identical and the same will be decided through this common judgment. 

4.      This is an indisputable fact that all these cases pertain to the pension.  The main grievance of the opposite parties/petitioners is that the consumer fora are not armed with the power to adjudicate the pension matters.  The counsel for the petitioners did not raise any other point.  In order to buttress his arguments, he has cited an authority of the Supreme Court reported in Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat vs. Dir. Health Services, Haryana & Ors. decided on 11.7.2013 in civil appeal No. 5476 of 2013  wherein the Supreme Court was pleased to observe:

“In view of the above, it is evident that by no stretch of imagination a government servant can raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral benefits before any of the Forum under the Act.  The government servant does not fall under the definition of a “consumer” as defined under Section 2(i)(d)(ii) of the Act.  Such government servant is entitled to claim his retiral benefits strictly in accordance with his service

-10-

conditions and regulations or statutory rules framed for that purpose.  The appropriate forum, for redressal of any his grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or Civil Court but certainly not a Forum under The Act.”

 5.     Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the consumer fora have arrogated to themselves those powers which they do not possess.

6.      We clap no value with these arguments.  The judgment of Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat vs. Dir. Health Services, Haryana & Ors. (supra) must be read holistically.  The same cannot be read in vacua to the detriment of one party and to the benefit of another party.  Para 15 of the same judgment runs as follows:

“In Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Bhavani AIR 2008 SC 2957, this court dealt with the issue as to whether Dr. Padia’s submissions regarding the non-applicability of the Act to the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – the person responsible for the working of a Pension Scheme, could be held to be a ‘service giver’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act, as it was neither a case of rendering of free service nor rendering of

-11-

service under a contract of personal service so as to bring the relationship between the parties within the concept of ‘master and servant’.  The court held:

“In our view, the respondent comes squarely within the definition of ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii), inasmuch as, by becoming a member of the Employees’ Family Pension Scheme, 1971, and contributing to the same, she was availing of the services rendered by the appellant for implementation of the Scheme.  The same is the case in the other appeals as well.”

7.      It must be borne in mind that the complainants in the instant case are not the government servants.  They work in a semi government institution.  They cannot approach the State Administrative Tribunal or civil court.  The civil court will entail a lot of time.  By virtue of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, they have got the remedy of redressal of their grievances in the consumer fora itself.

8.      Moreover, in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi, 2000 SCC 98, it was held:

“We cannot  accept  the argument that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, being Central

-12-

Government, cannot be held to be rendering “service” within the meaning and scheme of the Act. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, under the Act and the Scheme discharges statutory functions for  running  the  Scheme.  It has not, in any way, been delegated with the sovereign powers of the State so as to hold it as a Central Government, being not the authority rendering the “service” under the Act. The Commissioner  is  a separate and distinct entity.  It cannot legally claim that the facilities provided by the “Scheme” were not “service” or that the benefits  under the Scheme being provided were free of charge. The definition of “consumer” under the Act includes  not  only  the person who hires the “services” for consideration but also the beneficiary, for whose benefit such services are hired.  Even if it is  held  that administrative charges are paid by the Central Government and no part of  it  is paid  by  the employee, the services of the Provident Fund Commissioner in running  the Scheme shall be deemed to have been availed of for consideration by

-13-

the Central Government for the benefit of employees who would be treated as beneficiaries within the meaning of that word used in the definition of “consumer”.  This court in Spring Meadows Hospital V. Harjot Ahluwalia, 7 (1998) 4 SCC: JT (1998) 2 SC 620,  to which  one of us (Saghir  Ahmad, J) was a party has already held that the “consumer” means  a  person  who hires or avails of any services and includes any beneficiary of such service  other  than  the person who hires or avails the services. The Act gives a comprehensive definition of “consumer” who is the principal beneficiary of  the legislation but  at  the  same  time in view of  the comprehensive  definition of the term “consumer” even a member of the family of such “consumer”  was held to be having the status of  ‘consumer’ ”.

9.      This view was taken by our Bench in Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Raichur vs. Vasant Madhav Kerur (RP No. 765 of 2013) and other connected 27 revision petitions decided on 9.4.2013.

-14-

10.    Consequently, all the revision petitions are meritless and the same are dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/- each payable to each of the complainants, which shall be paid within three months, otherwise, it will carry interest @10% per annum till realisation.